I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours when he is going to lay on the Table the Report of the Railway Board for last year. The information given would have some bearing on the Bill now before the House. I should also like to ask him when he is going to lay on the Table the report of the Departmental Committee on workshops.

With regard to the report of the Railway Board the report at the present time is in print, and I hope to lay it on the Table during this week, but I do not want to make a definite statement. This is also the case with the Workshops Commission report. It is being translated and printed and as soon as it is finished I shall lay it oh the Table.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

Col. Sir DAVID HARRIS seconded.

I willingly accept this motion. The petitioner appears to be under a misapprehension. There is no intention, on the part of the department, to remove the post office at Hospital Hill.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

Mr. STRUBEN seconded.

I have no objection to this motion, if it is not taken as thereby creating a precedent that this can be done without consultation.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I object.

I move—

This motion requires explanation. I have the whole history of Bechuanaland while it was still Stellaland in my mind. We are concerned here with an injustice which was done 40 years ago, but it nevertheless remains an injustice and therefore I have addressed the request to the Government to remedy that injustice. The old volunteers established the republic of Stellaland in 1880. Two kaffir chiefs had a dispute and volunteers from the Transvaal were given the promise that they would get ground from the captains if they took part in the fight. Massouw and Mankoroane did this and the republic of Stellaland was founded. The republic could not stand alone. A portion wanted to join the Transvaal and another portion wished the Imperial Government to be approached to join the republic to the Cape Province. The consequence was that the Imperial Government sent Rhodes there to make an agreement. In 1884 he had a conference with the residents at Commando Drift. The conference lasted three days and an agreement of five sections was reached, one of which was—

But it was never decided in what way those rights should be acknowledged. The result was that Rhodes went and appointed three commissioners to investigate all claims The ground was granted to about half of the settlers on payment of 10s. per 1,000 morgen quitrent. The statements of the rest were doubted. It is a pity that such a reflection was thrown on the people, and some of them lost their rights and had to pay quitrent of £5 per 1,000 morgen. The farms are three or four thousand morgen, and quitrent to the amount of £600 has already been paid thereon. The consequence is that in some cases they abandoned the ground. The ground then fell back to the State and was issued as Crown land, after people had already cultivated it for 40 years. It is therefore with the greatest confidence that I make the request that the injustice should be remedied. The Government must take into consideration that those people were the voortrekkers. They stood in the breach of civilization. They went there with bare feet to make the country habitable. At that time they were told that they could appeal to the Privy Council in England. Which of them could risk going to the Privy Council about quitrent of £5 per 1,000 morgen? It is a great pity that Bechuanaland is so little known to hon. members and that they know so little of the future of the country. It is a pity that this young country should go about with a mill stone round its neck. There are irregularities with regard to quitrent throughout the Union, but here in Bechuanaland an injustice was done and that is why I make the request. I do it especially because there is still much Crown land which is being issued. No quitrent will be paid and these people will then not be able to compete with the new settlers. We will compel them to let the ground remain fallow. It is said that some of the land owners are oversea and retain the ground for speculating purposes. I have the names of the original settlers, and the ground still to-day belongs, for the most part, to them or their children, that is why I ask the Government to give consideration to the matter and to grant the request.

I have much pleasure in seconding the motion. The circumstances are known throughout the whole of Bechuanaland. Fortunately, as owner of various farms in the division. I do not come under the quitrent, otherwise my intervention might be regarded as interested, but I regard it as a most unequal tax. If the Government do not change the state of affairs it will remain a stumbling block preventing the progress of poor people. The tax just hits the class of people who will make good landowners. The Government is now occupied in getting people on to the land. Our towns are full of people who cannot exist on the land any longer. We must obviate more poor whites being created by that quitrent. For this reason I support the motion.

I move, as an amendment—

I want wholeheartedly to say a few words in support of the motion. The matter can only be put right if the Government will again give its attention thereto. One of the things which first attracts attention is the unequal burden in various parts of the Cape Province in consequence of the different systems of quitrent. To a question I put last year the hon. Minister of Finance replied that in my division, Griqualand, there were no less than three systems of quit-rent. Probably there are more. Under the unequal burden the feeling arose that the Government was committing an injustice by favouring certain owners and certain parts of the country, seeing there were portions that paid so much less quitrent than other portions, which paid up to £20, £30 or £40 sterling per annum in quitrent, and if there were no other reason for the Government again taking this matter into consideration except the removal of the impression that a distinction is made between one part and another then that is sufficient reason. We would like to see uniformity throughout the whole of the Union. The inequality of the burden of taxation on various parts of the same province gives occasion for grievances and it is therefore necessary that the Government should again review the matter. I am thankful for the promise given to me personally that an enquiry will be made and I do not wish it to be thought by these words that I do not accept the promise, but I want to emphasize the feeling which has arisen in connection with the unequal burden. In many instances more than the full value, not to speak of the purchase price, has already been paid, and yet the same burden still continues. Now the great difficulty which exists is that in the past commissions were appointed to investigate the matter, but, as I am informed, the commission did not finish its work. Where it did its work there reduction and relief were actually granted. But because the commission for one or other reasons could not complete the work, there is a small portion which remains unaffected, and the proposal is that the grievances there should be investigated either by a Government official or a local body or a commission. I hope the hon. Minister will have the matter investigated, firstly, to remove the idea of unequal treatment, and secondly, to give relief.

The Rev. Mr. HATTINGH seconded.

I should like to support the motion. The high quitrent is the cause of grievances which have existed for years among the farming population, especially here in the Cape Province. The matter is not only confined to the portion of which the two members before me have spoken about, namely, the north-western portions including Bechuanaland. Grievances exist in the Eastern Province also, especially in my constituency, which are of many years’ growth. The grievances have been constantly brought forward not only before the House but also in congresses, and resolutions passed to approach the Government for relief. Therefore I should like to move, as a further amendment—

The reference here is to irregularity in the quitrent. It is not only the case between parts of the country but also within special districts, in Wodehouse, e.g., there are various systems. On one side of the Wasbank £5 per 1,000 morgen is paid and on the other side 30s. Then there are other portions again where £40 is paid. These inconsistencies must be brought to the notice of the Government. I, therefore, propose that a commission of enquiry should be appointed. This is not the first time that such a proposal has been made. In the old Cape Parliament the matter was repeatedly brought up and a commission was appointed in 1899. It unfortunately consisted of officials, people who looked more after the interests of the Treasury than those of the farmer. Certain recommendations were made and here and there relief was given The commission, however, only did half of its work. Many farmers were away from home, others did not know about it, with the result that the dissatisfaction continued. In 1910 the matter was again considered by Parliament. Mr. Fischer said that the matter should be dealt with from the point of view of the whole Union with the object of attaining uniformity. Since then motions in connection with the matter have come before the House year after year. Apparently as the result of the discussion in 1910 the Government appointed a commissioner to complete the unfinished work of the commission, He went about the country but had no power to remedy irregularities. His report was simply that the quitrent was not too high and did not press too heavily. Thereafter a motion was introduced similar to the one I have moved to-day. With reference to such a commission I would like to suggest that if the Government appoints one it will not make the same mistake as the old Cape Parliament. The commission must not consist of officials. It must consist of five members of whom four should be practical farmers with a magistrate as chairman. They can get into touch with the farmers and collect information. As we can reasonably expect that uniformity will be brought about, and as we have been dealing with this matter for 15 years, I hope that the Government will take action in connection with the matter. The inequality exists and I need not enlarge upon it. In my district it is bad, but in neighbouring districts it is still worse and the people are begging for relief. I trust that the Government will accept my motion and appoint a commission to investigate the unequal pressure of the quitrent.

Mr. BRINK seconded.

The matter is perfectly clear, but as I understand the matter, it is ground which the people bought at that time at different places and at different prices. To-day, the people who bought the farms from the Government on certain conditions wish that the Government should cancel the quitrent. If there is a piece of ground valued at £100 then the ground is given to a man on condition that he pays each year a quitrent of £5. When he pays the £100 to the Government the £5 lapses. If we adopt the motion I fear that difficulties will also arise in the Transvaal because we have similar difficulties there. If the Government intends to reduce the prices in the cases under discussion I have no objection, but the same difficulties will also arise in the Transvaal if this motion is passed. Ground was bought there as well on various terms and conditions. I only wished to say these few words so that hon. members should know what was going on. As soon as the man in the case I have mentioned pays the £100 then the yearly payment of £5 lapses.

No, the quitrent is perpetual.

This is a matter which comes under the Minister of Finance, but in his absence and because it also affects the Department of Lands I will reply to the debate. It seems to me that considerable confusion exists on the matter. The quitrent in the Cape Province cannot be uniform. In the Transvaal and in the Free State it is not so. There we have a farm tax on certain classes of farms after they are purchased. The old Cape Government sold farms and the person who offered the highest quitrent got the farm for it and paid no further purchase price. In the Transvaal it is an ordinary tax on ground and we cannot, therefore, have uniformity. In the Cape Province people feel it is a grievance that they have paid for the ground over and over again. If they had allowed quitrent to be capitalized at 5 per cent. they could obtain the ground by the payment of the purchase price. Why do they not do it? The old Cape Government commission travelled about the country for two years and it cost the State much money. The matter was then regarded as disposed of. After Union the request was again made to have the matter investigated. A commissioner was appointed, but I cannot learn from the documents whether the commission missed any instances. The difficulty of appointing another commission is that if we free the people from the quitrent they will get the ground for nothing. This is unfair towards the Transvaal and towards those who have already paid the capitalized amount. The position in Bechuanaland is possibly different and I am willing to investigate that matter, but I do not see my way to appoint another commission. If it appears necessary the Government will do it, but at the moment it does not seem to me as if I could do it. In Natal there is another kind of “quitrent” because Natal must, of course, have something different to the rest of the country. It is altered every six months by proclamation. I cannot make head or tail of the matter. I do not think it is a grievance there as it is no longer paid. In the Cape Province people come to me with many such matters and requests, but the position is as I have clearly pointed out to the House. We cannot alter the matter unless we do an injustice to the Transvaal and other portions of the community.

I am pleased at the attitude which the Minister has taken up towards this question, that while the Government is quite agreeable to accepting the motion it is not agreeable to the appointment of a commission, as it will first of all go into the matter. What is this quitrent which we have heard so much about this afternoon? It is not a tax; it is interest on the purchase price. The mode in which the State parted with land was on a system of perpetual quitrent, and it was open to anybody in accordance with a later enactment to free himself of his quitrent, to capitalize at 5 per cent. the amount of the quitrent, and many landowners have done that. If any land-owner wishes to free himself of the quitrent he can easily do so by paying off the capital sum. The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) complained of the low quitrent paid in Bechuanaland. This is a very low quit-rent, only one penny and one five-hundredth of a penny per morgen. And this could be capitalized at the rate of 2s. per morgen when they would be free of quitrent, and if this cannot be done then one would have every sympathy with a motion of this kind—that the Government should consider the advisability of giving facilities for landowners to pay off the purchase price by capitalizing their quitrents, as it is very awkward when the land is sub-divided for the owners to pay these little bits of quitrent. Farmers know the value of land, and if any one here or there paid too much for their land that would happen in the ordinary course. Under this quitrent system the State is your bondholder and what you are annually paying to the State in quitrent only equals 5 per cent. interest on the purchase price. Many have paid off their purchase price and freed their land of quitrent, and you will have to inquire into these cases also.

With leave of the House, the amendment proposed by Mr. Vermooten was withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Stals put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

I move—

We have here to do with two cheques for the total sum of £56. The two original cheques are still in possession of the widow and are in good order. On account of the war being then still in progress the cheques were not paid. Hence this request that the Government will inquire whether the cheques are still in order, whether they were correctly signed, and whether funds are available to honour the two cheques. I therefore make the proposal.

Mr. ROOD seconded.

Agreed to.

I would like to withdraw motion No. 5—

The matter of pensions is being discussed by the International Conference in Geneva and we are awaiting a report from our representative at that conference, therefore, with the permission of the House, I wish to withdraw the motion.

The hon. member is not moving his motion.

Motion withdrawn.

I move—

As hon. members are aware, the terms of this Bill and the items mentioned have been examined by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. The chairman moved the adoption of the report, and the House has adopted that report. The items are for revenue services of the railways £5,783 and capital and betterment services £40,000, which is for the purchase of the Balfour to Grootvlei line.

Agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, schedule and title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment, and read a third time.

I move—

Mr. VERMOOTEN seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

This is a small Bill, which I do not think needs much consideration. It refers to settlements which do not come under the Act of 1912. Section 46 (g) makes provision that settlers can appoint their own committee of control for local affairs. Certain settlements were created under Crown land ordinances such as, e.g., kopjes in the Free State, and certain settlements in Natal have not got that right. This Bill has been introduced under pressure from the settlers of Vyfhoek, near Potchefstroom, who are anxious to elect such a committee. They approached the former Minister of Lands and he made a promise to them that he would introduce this measure. Seeing there are also other settlements who would like to come under the Bill. I make provision that the Bill shall also apply to other settlements in the same position. I just wish to say that the powers and capacities of the committee are limited to the control of grazing ground, commonage, etc. The committee will not have the right to lessen anybody’s rights. If any one has the right of grazing 20 head of stock, the committee cannot reduce that to 18. But the committee will decide whether people can plough there and where gravel, etc., should be quarried. All the decisions of the committee will of course be subject to the Acts of Parliament or the ordinances of the province.

I hope that the second reading of this Bill will without further delay be passed. The Bill has been introduced by the hon. Minister of Lands to fulfil a promise given by me to the settlers, and I think the more honour is due to the Minister, because he is fulfilling a promise of his predecessor. Objections may perhaps be made to the provision that the right is given to the commission to levy a tax on the settlers themselves. We found out, and I think the Government have also found out, that the raising of taxation is very unpopular. Yet I think the provision a good one. Let us try this as an experiment, and I hope that eventually it will be found possible to extend the principle to other and, in fact, all settlements. I think it is the ultimate ambition of any Minister of Lands to make the settlements independent, and that the settlers should reach such a stage that they can be given independence. I therefore hope that this experiment can also be extended to other settlements so that we get so far as to make the settlers independent and the settlements govern themselves with a minimum of interference by the Department of Lands. I hope that this second reading will pass without difficulty.

I do not wish to detain the House. I am in favour of the appointment of the committee, but now that I hear that the committee will have the right to levy a tax I must object to a sort of municipality being created, if that is the intention. I should like to hear clearly from the Minister what powers the committee are going to be given to levy taxation. We must not give the power to the committee to further tax the poor settler and make matters difficult for him.

I think this Bill is a very good measure. I have experience of settlements, and I think it is necessary to appoint a committee for the regulation of internal affairs. I should just like to know from the hon. Minister whether the election to be held for the purpose of appointing the committee will be secret. My experience is that the more important and richest men of the settlement usually get on to such a committee. They do not mind if taxation is imposed, because they can easily bear it, but if the election is held secretly, then the poor settler also has a chance of getting on the committee, and it is the poor man who must be protected, because he is the least able to pay taxes. I therefore hope that the election in the settlements will be secret.

Is it the intention of the Minister to bring the Winterton Settlement within the scope of this Bill? This settlement is being managed by a committee which has no statutory authority, and which finds it difficult and unsatisfactory to carry on its duties without that authority.

That is my idea. I take powers under clause 4 to apply the Bill to any other settlements that may ask for it. Winterton is probably one of the settlements which will come under the Bill if the committee ask for it.

*I wish to inform the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) that the committee will have to make certain expenditure, e.g., in connection with water and the removal of dead animals. To cover this they will have to levy a tax which is, of course, subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands.

Will they not become municipalities?

No, I must approve of the tax and I will of course see to it that it is only sufficient to cover the expenditure. With reference to the election of the committee, I wish to point out to the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) that in pursuance of section 1 (2) it will take place in a manner fixed by the Minister and I will fix a secret ballot where it is necessary, and where a request to that effect is made.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

On clause 2,

I move—

I do not think sufficient provision is made with reference to the protection of public health in the settlements. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether he is willing to describe a little more clearly in section 2 (s) the provision for public health.

I do not think it is necessary. The Bill only deals with subjects which are outside the control of the municipality.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 4,

On the motion of the Minister of Lands, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 and the title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

I move—That the amendments be now considered

objected.

Amendments to be considered to-morrow.

We really cannot take supply now. As a matter of fact two members, who have spoken strongly on the matter, are not available this afternoon, and it would not be fair to go on this afternoon, I refer to the hon. members for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). They have left because they did not expect to get so far this afternoon. I appeal to the Minister not to go on with supply and allow us to adjourn the House. I move—

Lt.-Col. N. J. PRETORIUS seconded.

I would like to support this motion. We are working very hard under difficult circumstances. This is a private members’ day and a great deal of Government work has been finished to-day. We are under the difficulty that a number of members who would ordinarily take part in the discussion on committee, are not available, never dreaming that we should make this progress. The main difficulty does not arise so much from this side of the House as from the Government side. Ministers are not available. A number of important measures are ahead of this, and because Ministers are unwell or absent on other duties we are left with this state of affairs. I strongly support the motion.

I do not mind meeting the hon. member. I must only point out that we are creating a very bad precedent. I think that it is expected that every member should be present in the House. It is true what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has said that we have much work and the business is sometimes unnecessarily held up. I think, therefore, that we should use all our time. In the circumstances I will take it into consideration. We will allow this vote to stand over and go on to the next… If hon. members will not agree to that then I cannot accept the motion.

I hope that the statement of the Minister of the Interior is not the final word on this question. If he will look at the Order Paper he will see the progress that has been made to-day. We have already taken all the stages of the Railways and Harbours Unauthorized Expenditure Bill for the purpose of facilitating business; we have taken the third reading of the Unauthorized Expenditure Bill and we have allowed an order which hon. members might have thought would have been taken charge of by some other Minister to go through. After that come important Bills by the Minister of Agriculture. We all regret that the Minister of Agriculture is absent through illness, but no member of this House had an opportunity of knowing that the Minister would be absent through illness and I say it is a most unfair thing to ask the House to take an important matter like this when the majority of members had no possible opportunity of knowing that it was likely to come forward. In regard to what the Minister of the Interior said that members ought to be here always, I should say that private members on both sides of the House are as constant in their attendance at this House as Cabinet Ministers are, and under the circumstances I think that Cabinet Ministers ought to have a certain amount of consideration for hon. members who have been giving a great deal of attention to the business of this House. The Minister knows quite well it is impossible for hon. members always to be present. When members look through the Order Paper in the morning and see several important measures, each one of which will be likely to take up a good deal of time, I do say it is unfair to ask the House to go on with an important vote like Supply when hon. members, who take a deep interest in thee question, have not an opportunity of being present. I would appeal to the Minister of Justice to show a little justice on this question.

He will have to temper mercy with it.

I think that as Minister of Justice he might show a little justice and sympathy and agree to the appeal of my hon. friend. I do not think it is the desire of the Government, through the extraordinary position in which the Order Paper has got owing to the illness of the Minister of Agriculture that members should not have an opportunity of discussing Supply.

I think what the Opposition really wants is more mercy than justice. In any case I do not see why we should waste two hours—we wasted a lot of time yesterday—in discussing such a rubbishy matter. If hon. members want to pursue that matter they can waste the next couple of hours on it.

It is remarkable to see how a plea is made for two hon. members who live here in Cape Town because they are not present. What then about us, who live hundreds of miles from here? What must we do with the two hours, the adjournment is desired too soon? We have already had two holidays which the hon. members living here could use, but when we had to walk the streets without knowing what to do. I hope that we shall not adjourn now.

I must say that I do not understand the attitude of the Government. I object very strongly to what the Minister of the Interior said, that members ought to be present in the House. Where are all the Ministers? We met the Government by not objecting to the rearrangement of work on the order paper. We have now reached a matter which no one could expect, and it is unfair to make a reflection on the two hon. members for Cape Town. They discussed a fairly important matter, and we cannot now merely pass it by. I will be willing to accept the hint of the Minister if he will tell us where he will stop, because we might again reach matters upon which members are just as little prepared.

Motion put and negatived.

The Minister of the Interior suggested that this Vote should stand over and that No. 21 should be taken. I should like to move to that effect.

Motion put and negatived.

I appeal to the Minister. It was his suggestion.

Some time since an official of the Government announced that the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) was going to be appointed Administrator at the Cape. That announcement was made at a meeting down at Somerset East. Now I notice in the “Gazette” that the present Administrator, Sir Frederic de Waal, has been re-appointed to undertake from the 31st May, 1925. I would like to know what is the position.

I am afraid that is an appointment by the Prime Minister.

No, this comes under the Minister of the Interior, with profound respect to you, sir. Perhaps he can give us some information. Was the information given to the press incorrect?

I do not want to draw down upon my head the sarcasm of the Minister of Justice for wasting more time, but I want to remove a misapprehension. I read a wire yesterday which I stated was from the chairman of the East Griqualand Agricultural Society. I did that to emphasize the position of the gentleman who had wired to me, but I did not wish to convey the impression that the agricultural society itself had sent that wire, and it was only when the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made great play with this matter that I realized how it was taken. I want to make it very clear indeed that wire was from a man of high standing in his private capacity.

Will the hon. member explain how he connects that telegram with the Vote here?

It was discussed yesterday on this Vote.

I think the deputy-chairman has allowed sufficient latitude. He has been very generous. I am sorry to say I am not going to be so generous.

I have made my explanation, and I will sit down.

I would like the Minister to give us some information in regard to the Asiatic Bill which he spoke about some time ago. We would like to know when this Bill is likely to come along. We should also like some indication as to how the Bill is going to operate. This matter is agitating many minds, particularly in Natal, very considerably. I hope the Minister will be able to give us fuller information than he gave a short time ago.

In reply to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, all I can say is that I have said all I have to say about the Asiatic question and the Bill in connection with it. I have stated all this on a former occasion, and I have nothing to add to that. I think it is altogether unusual for a Minister to give information to the House with regard to the contents of a Bill he is going to introduce at a later stage. I must ask the hon. gentleman and his friends in Natal to have a little patience.

You are going to introduce it this session?

Yes, I said so the other night. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked a question as to the position of the Administratorship of the Cape. Now the proclamation to which he refers appointing Sir Frederic de Waal, as he will see, appoints him for a further period of five years. That is altogether in accordance with the requirements of the law, and the real position the hon. gentleman will know from a statement which has been made with regard to this appointment by Sir Frederic de Waal himself some months ago. He gave all the information to Reuter and to the press generally in the country, and if the hon. gentleman will bring to his mind the contents of this statement he will know the whole position.

I do not remember seeing it.

The position is that Sir Frederic de Waal has been appointed by the Government for a further period of five years. That is the only possible thing to do in accordance with the law, but Sir Frederic has agreed that at the end of this year he will retire, and from the beginning of next year a new Administrator will take his place.

I see in the paper that the Administrator is going to England, or at any rate overseas, next month. Are you going to appoint someone in his place?

Yes, that is always done. A proclamation will appear in the “Gazette” one of these days, appointing as his substitute for the time the provincial secretary.

Who is the new one?

Wait and see.

I would like the Minister to give the House as much information as he can with regard to E 5 on page 76, Repatriation of Indians, including the numbers repatriated; and also under J 1, page 78, Repatriation of South Africans, the number who have been repatriated under this section. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) in regard to the Natal Society Library, the Minister referred to this as a hardy annual coming up every year. The case has been put very strongly before the Minister, and I was grieved to note the curt answer he gave to my hon. friend when he raised the question the other day. Mr. Speaker introduced a deputation consisting of the majority of Natal members to the Minister on this matter when he gave a sympathetic hearing. I hope it is not too late, and that he will take the matter into further consideration and remove an injustice which has undoubtedly been done during the past few years.

I would like to ask the Minister what system he has adopted to acquaint these people in respect of this repatriation scheme which he is trying to push in Natal. I have information in front of me which goes to show that there are large numbers on Indians in Natal who have never even yet heard of it. An ex-Indian official was visiting Natal a short time ago, and was in close touch with a good many of the Indians, and asked several of them whether they had heard of this scheme, and they said they had heard nothing about it. He selected one individual, gave him a letter to the Protector of Immigrants’ office, in order that he might make arrangements for himself and family to go to India. He also wrote a letter, on behalf of this particular Indian, to his friends in India, stating that the man was leaving for home. This took place in September last. Up to April 3rd nothing had been done, and this man came back from the Indian immigration office with the information that, so far as he could see, no man was likely to get attention at that office unless he was prepared to bribe some understrapper in the department. That is the impression he came away with, and it is a fact he has never been repatriated. I can give the name of the man and the whole of the circumstances to the Minister if he so desires, so that enquiry may be made. I am inclined to think it is true, because the gentleman who gave me the information was a perfect Indian linguist who had spent a long time as an official in India. I should also like to ask the Minister whether he knows that Indians are still coming into Natal from India—being smuggled in. That information was given to me by an official whose word I have every reason to believe. If that is the case, there is evidently some looseness in regard to ship supervision arriving in Durban from India. I think he also stated that the Minister had been informed of this, and that no action had been taken. If that is so, it is a very serious state of affairs. If we are spending all this money in repatriation, and yet they are still coming in, it is a state of affairs that needs looking into. I hope the Minister will say what system he has followed in the past and whether he is prepared to alter things in the future. When he intimated his intention to adopt this scheme I suggested to him that he should follow a certain course, and that the only course would be to follow the system that was adopted when the Indians originally came here, namely, to appoint Indian recruiters to go among the Indians themselves, and that the recruiters should be offered a per capita sum for every man they put on board ship. Unless the Minister is prepared to adopt that system and leave it to the Indians themselves to get the Indians out of this country, and make it to the advantage of the recruiter to get them away, you will have the same state of affairs going on. As I have had described to me by those who in possession of the facts.

I would like to bring a certain phase of the Asiatic question to the notice of the Minister. I am quite sure it has escaped his attention so far, and I would like him to bear it in mind when he brings up his promised Bill about the Asiatic question. Members who were in the House in 1919, will remember that we had rather a long, and, at times, a heated discussion about the question of Asiatics coming into the country districts. Perhaps they will remember that an amendment was moved, and defeated by a very narrow majority, by which we sought to gain the same ends as provision is made for in the gold law, to restrict the issuing of licences on the Rand We find, to-day, that our fears have been only too well justified. We find that Asiatic stores have sprung up everywhere in the country districts, on many of the transport roads, and I do not think I need labour the question, or argue at very great length, to show that this is a very undesirable state of affairs. But there is another phase of the question that touches my constituency particularly, and the whole of the eastern Transvaal. We have a special grievance there. I think if I put to the Minister the position in my own constituency, the House might follow it better, perhaps, and see what I mean. In my constituency, since the war, six new townships have been laid out, and in every case, the people who laid out the townships—that is, the people who participated and bought erven and ground—tried to protect themselves. They have had the experience that if trade is created, and a centre of trade made, the Indian will, sooner or later, follow, and try to secure this trade. So the people tried to protect themselves against this menace that they knew would come sooner or later. As the Minister no doubt knows, there are two kinds of townships. Some of them were laid down before the Townships Ordinance was proclaimed. It was not then necessary to get Government sanction or get the proclamation of the township, so the only way they could safeguard themselves was to put certain servitudes in the deeds of transfer relating to erven in these townships. Since the Townships Ordinance, this has been one of the conditions upon which the townships, in the other cases have been formed. I hope the Minister will bear with me. From our point of view it is very important. I would have to bring this matter up at a later stage if I did not do so now. I would like to give the Minister some examples of the servitudes that were traced on these erven being sold. People said we will participate, but only on condition that certain servitudes are placed, and that we once for all keep the Asiatics out of these townships. In connection with Breyten township, the following servitude will be found—

In connection with Lake Chrissie, they have put, more or less, the same servitude—

In connection with Davel township the same servitude will be found with slight variations. The Transvaal Townships Ordinance was then passed, and it was put down as a condition that these restrictions against occupation by Asiatics should be placed on all urban townships, so that when the Morgenzon township was laid out this restrictive condition was approved by the townships board. A similar restrictive clause was inserted in title deeds issued for the township of Sheepmoor. The people responsible for laying out of townships and the purchases of stands in those townships tried to protect themselves against Asiatics, but what they feared happened. The Asiatic came along after centres of trade had been formed in these townships and desired to acquire stands. Finding that was impossible and that for once the white man had been careful, the Asiatic decided to collar the trade at the gates, and in the case of every township one or two Asiatic stores are located at the gate. The Asiatic made an offer to the nearest farmer to the township to lease a piece of land. In many cases the offer was refused at first, but the Asiatic doubled and trebled his offer, until to-day there is an Asiatic store at the entrance of every township, and the Asiatics are collaring all the trade of these townships. The argument may be used: “You won’t allow the Asiatic inside the township and now you won’t allow him outside,” but I say he was never there before, and you would never have heard of him but for the creation of the townships. The people responsible feel that they cannot do any more, and that once again the Asiatic has got round the law. The only way in which assistance can be rendered is by legislation prohibiting an Asiatic from trading within six miles of a township which is protected against Asiatic trading within its boundaries. I hope the Minister will take this particular matter up in his Bill; if not, one will have to move amendments and take one’s chance. People are becoming desperate, as they find that slowly but surely their means of livelihood are being taken away and they look to this House for assistance.

I should like just in a few words to support the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). He has quite correctly represented the conditions in the eastern Transvaal. The white people who have put up a shop in a small place cannot compete with the one or two Asiatics who open a shop along the road. I hope therefore that the hon. Minister will give particular attention to the point.

Many settlers have complained about having to pay import duty on their furniture and effects, which they do not have to do in the case of the other dominions. Surely South Africa can fall into line with the sister dominions in this respect. It is very mean to charge settlers full duty on their second-hand furniture. Many of the settlers have only a limited amount of capital, and they require all they have to enable them to make a start.

I see that the Minister of the Interior has appointed a psychologist at £674 a year. Why is he required? Then the staff of the archives department has been increased from 8 to 12, while in the census and statistics department, the clerical assistants have been increased by 8.

I explained the other night that was due to the census.

This debate is about the reduction of the salary of the Minister of the Interior. I am sorry that I could not propose it, because I should have added rice water. In my constituency there have been people on the roll for 30 or 40 years who now have to fill in forms again. Many of them cannot read or write, because they have the franchise under the old Act. The lists are not clear which people fall under that class, because the wrong name is printed in italics and the canvassers do not know the people. I expected it of the Minister and of the Nationalist party, although one cannot call it a party, because I only see empty benches on the opposite side.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote under discussion.

The point is the registration of coloured voters. We find that on the countryside they are called our hon. coloured friends. I am, however, told that Hottentots have sent me to the House. Some of the old coloured people’s names are not in italics, yet that is the case with the name of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), I suppose to show that he can neither read nor write. I was not astonished last night when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) introduced his motion. I am accustomed to that sort of thing from the Minister, e.g., in the constituency of Victoria West.

The hon. member is again drifting away from the vote.

I am talking about the salary of the Minister, and I do not think that he deserves it.

The hon. member cannot talk about administrative matters.

I want to show in what way he fights an election. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also discussed the conduct of the Minister at a previous election. At Loxton the hon. Minister sat tight and permitted all kinds of things against the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

The hon. member cannot continue with that.

I still want to give him rice water.

If the hon. member continues with that I shall have to ask him to sit down.

As I have shown, the coloured people are not treated justly. All sorts of efforts are made to remove them from the roll, especially because they are not at home in the day time when the canvassers come round. The Minister has not yet answered me about the Nelspoort sanatorium. The institution is not carried on properly by the Government. They were for some weeks without coal in the winter.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

I think I will just first of all say a few words with reference to the particularly exalted and remarkable speech of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw). I just want to tell him that I probably did not answer him on a previous occasion upon a question in connection with the Nelspoort sanatorium because the question was asked when a vote was under discussion which had nothing to do with that. Nor can I go into the matter now. The matter must be discussed when the vote for public health comes on, and not now. The hon. member for Stellenbosch has not been a member of the House for long, but I hope that in future he will take care to discuss matters at the proper time and under the vote where they belong. The hon. member has further reproached me on account of the voters’ roll being printed wrongly, and that in some eases the lists which are printed in italics have been given to people such as the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), while the lists so printed are intended for people who are given a vote, although they cannot read or write. Well. I just want to tell the hon. member that the lists were prepared by the former Government, and if he wants to put anybody on rice water for it then he must do so to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and not to me. If it happens that the name of some person or another has been wrongly placed on the roll, then it is unlucky, but how can the Minister of the Interior, who has nothing to do with the matter, be made responsible for it? It does not figure in the instructions which I as Minister give to the registering officer. And if mistakes have occurred, then there is always the revision court available, which can remedy all the mistakes.

†The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked a question in regard to the appointment of a psychologist. I can only reply that this is a new appointment and that it has been found necessary to appoint an expert, more especially in connection with our hospitals for the feeble-minded. It is absolutely necessary that whole problem should be studied more thoroughly than has been the case in the past, and for that purpose we require the services of an expert. The hon. member asked a question with regard to the census department, where there are eight clerks more than appeared on the previous year’s estimates. The explanation I gave the other night is that according to the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, it was more economical and efficient to do away with the services of temporary officers and to replace eight temporary men by seven permanent men. That has been done, but there is actually no change of any importance.

There is also the Archives—eight to twelve.

The increase in the archives is in connection with the Bloemfontein archives. Money had been voted in the previous year for the extension of the archives building in Bloemfontein and additional staff in connection with that is necessary. Then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) has asked a question in regard to the repatriation of Indians and has enquired for some statistics in regard to that. I went into that question when the estimates were last under discussion, and I think I gave the House the information that for the last 10 years about 18,000 or 19,000 Indians had been repatriated, that is to say, more or less, 2,000 per year, and that with the inauguration of our new scheme and the increased inducement given to Indians to leave the country, compared with the previous year there has been an increase at the rate of about 600 per annum. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has asked whether nothing could be done to recruit Indians for repatriation. That is a question which I considered right at the outset when we initiated our new scheme last September, and we acted in the direction in which the hon. member desires us to go. We appointed, at that time—and, if I am not mistaken, that gentleman is still busy with the work—a recruiter of Indians for repatriation. Mr. Polkinghorne, a former officer who had been retired, has been engaged for that particular work. By way of disseminating information in regard to repatriation and the inducement held out to Indians to repatriate, leaflets have been distributed broadcast among the Indian population. We are doing as much as we can in that direction. The hon. member has pointed out that Indians still sometimes arrive in this country, coming in illicitly. That may be so, but, as far as my information goes, that does not occur in any of the harbours in the Union. They have come in the past more particularly by way of Delagoa Bay, but monetary inducement was held out by the Government and a reward was offered, I think of about £100 for any information given to the department which would lead to the conviction of any Indian coming in illicitly, and that scheme has worked very well, and according to the information that I have the leakage which there still might be is very small, even by way of Delagoa Bay. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has also spoken about the Asiatic question, but, as far as I could follow him, he made various proposals in regard to legislation in the future, and, as legislation is not under discussion now, I do not think I can say more than this, that I will take into consideration the points he has raised when I introduce legislation into the House.

I would like the Minister to deal with the question which I put to him last night in reference to the basis on which he has instructed his canvassers to canvass in the Cape Province.

I understand from the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) last night, that, according to his view, the regulations are ultra vires, or in any case, that the instructions are which I issued in connection with the present registration. In general, I can say this, that all regulations and all instructions which are given to registering officers, and all other officers, are, first of all, before they are issued, referred to the law advisers, and these regulations and instructions, which he thinks are a contravention of the law, have been before the law advisers, who have approved of them. I do not think I need go further into this particular question. About the legal capabilities of the hon. gentleman I cannot judge, but I know that a good many members of the House put a very high estimate on his legal abilities. Perhaps he has created, perhaps unwittingly created, the impression that his strength lies not so much in a thorough grip of the fundamentals of jurisprudence, as in a capacity for making fine distinctions, which, in ordinary parlance, is called hair-splitting. I am willing to accept that the hon. gentleman has very great legal capacity and capability, but I must add that while I believe in his legal knowledge and ability, I believe to a much larger extent in the capabilities of the law advisers. The hon. gentleman has complained that canvassers in the Cape Peninsula have registered claimants only on the residential qualification and not on the salary qualification, and as far as I can judge, the whole ground on which he bases that complaint is that instructions had been given to canvassers to visit the houses of claimants and to get all the information there. All I can say with regard to that is this, that these particular questions which are put to claimants at their residences have not been changed by me in any material respect. I think the only new question which I introduced in the forms containing these questions, and which are laid before claimants, is this, that the claimant must state, if he has been registered before, in what particular constituency he has been so registered; and that is very valuable information to prevent double registration. That is the only alteration I have made. All the criticism of the hon. gentleman must therefore not be directed against me, but if at all, against the previous Government. The South African party have come to this, that they have been going backwards and have been sinking for a number of years. The country at the last election condemned the party, and the South African party has now come to this pass, that they are condemning themselves. I do not think I should go further into this matter at present, because the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is not here, and the points I wish to raise are in connection with matters which he mentioned.

I do not think it is sufficient on an important question of this kind that the Minister should indulge in this sort of cheap gibe. If the Minister had taken the trouble to listen to the question put to him he would be able to appreciate that in the answer he has just given he has studiously avoided the point of the question. I ask him again whether canvassers acting upon instructions have gone round to places of business within each canvassing district and there interrogated employers and employees to ascertain who are entitled to be put on the roll by virtue of the salary qualification. Now we are told the law advisers have advised the Minister that the instructions he has issued are in order. He seems to suggest that these instructions have been taken over by him from his predecessor. My question did not, as he suggests, concern the splitting of hairs. It was a simple question asking him why, when the law requires his canvassers to ask certain specific questions which are laid down in the regulations, he should take it upon himself, with or without the authority of the law advisers, to substitute something entirely different, which has the effect of excluding from the roll a number of people entitled to be there. This regulation requires the canvasser to say that he has called to ascertain the names of all entitled to vote, and he must first ask for the names of persons entitled by virtue of the residential qualification, and, secondly, whether there are any persons entitled by the salary qualification to be registered. The point in my charge against the Minister, which he has failed to deal with—I will not say he has deliberately avoided it—is that he has instructed the canvassers, in place of asking these questions, to ask who are the white males above the age of 21 who are resident upon the premises. I will give him a specific instance. I know of a constituency in the Cape Peninsula where there are anything from 500 to 1,000 employees engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes. If the canvasser who goes there carries out the instructions of the Minister by asking who are the white people resident on those premises above the age of 21, obviously there would be no such persons found there, so that canvasser would omit to register on those premises all those persons who, by the salary qualification, would be entitled to have their names on the register. That canvasser would, by so doing, ignore the regulations and violate the law; and so far from hairsplitting, I suggest that if that or any canvasser acted in that way, then the Minister who sanctioned it has himself for some reason departed from the law. In place of a cheap gibe at the South African party, the Minister should meet the facts fairly and squarely and tell us whether or not the canvassers appointed by his department are carrying out the requirements of the law.

The difficulty the Minister has to cope with has not been quite fairly put before the House. His difficulty is that he has inherited from the late Government a loose system of registration. I want the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) to take the case of Beaconsfield. The compound registration at Beaconsfield was left in the hands of the De Beers Company, and the company carried on this year on the same lines as previously. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has stated that the Minister has tightened up these regulations to such an extent that he has disqualified certain qualified persons; but he has not made it clear that the Minister in framing these regulations has made it impossible for unqualified persons to creep into the registration. In regard to the De Beers Company, natives and employees of the company’s compound have not been taken up by the registration officer in the past. It has been left to the De Beers Company, and the result is that under the De Beers Company we have a large number of voters to whose presence on the register the hon. members for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) probably owe their presence in this House. These natives will sign their name as “John Brown,” for instance, and the canvasser has never seen John Brown. I think the House must recognize that the object of the Government is to place on the register every person who is entitled to be registered, and that where there is a loophole or a weakness, that person shall be excluded. I hope the Minister, in replying to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), will make it clear that is the intention of the Government, and that we, on this side of the House, have made up our minds to do everything possible to assist the Government in getting a clean voters’ roll. But what has happened in the De Beers Company is what we are going to obviate in the future.

I am sorry that I cannot, on this occasion, as on every other occasion, corroborate the statement of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). It is the first time I have heard that the De Beers Company framed the registration of the compounds. I doubt whether there are many registered voters in the compound, for generally the natives only remain for about six months, and to my knowledge—and I think I have a better knowledge of this matter than the hon. member—nearly all the native voters in Beaconsfield live in the location. The hon. member ought to know, because his canvassers were very busy in the location. The hon. member is absolutely and positively wrong, and even if some of the natives in the compound had a vote. I can only say that I commend them for selecting me in stead of the hon. member for Vredefort, in which they have shown a very wise discretion. I can only say again that the De Beers Company had nothing whatever to do with the registration either at Beaconsfield or at Kimberley. I admit, as a public man, that I myself see that the registration is properly carried out, and put as many people as possible on the roll who are entitled to be there and who I think would vote for myself. I admit that. I am sure hon. members on the opposite side would do the same.

In reply to the hon. member for Beaconsfield, I leave it to the Minister to reply to the remark that has been made by him in regard to the veracity of the statement made from this side of the House. I challenge the hon. member there to state whether the registration, not only in the past, but at the present time, with regard to the compounds, has been done by the De Beers Company. The hon. member for Beaconsfield knows it. The compounds all fall in the Beaconsfield division, but the locations fall in the Kimberley division, and the registration in the compounds, in the past, have been done by the De Beers Company, and at the last registration they were also registered by the De Beers Company, and it is the action of the De Beers Company in registering these natives that I object to. I challenge the hon. member and ask the Minister to say whether the facts are not as stated by me.

The De Beers are not registering officers.

But they did register.

I am sorry to take up the time of the House. I can only refute the statement that has emanated from the hon. member for Vredefort.

What we complain about, apart from that, is the inefficiency of the registration. I have a list here. Here is a name struck off the roll as having left the district, but the person is still living at the same address. Here is another case, similarly, of a man struck off who has been staying at the same address for many years.

Deliberately struck off the roll.

No, I do not say that. It is due to inefficiency. Here is another case of a man who has been residing at the same address for five years and is still there, and so it goes on. I will hand the list to the Minister. Í mention this, because it shows a lot of laxity in the registration. If the Minister wants to do the thing thoroughly I think these cases should be looked into and the canvasser should be called to account.

When this vote was under discussion about ten days ago, I referred to the question of immigration from eastern and southern Europe, and I have since received a letter from a valued correspondent, who has been closely following the subject of immigration in America. In commenting on the alarming influx of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe to South Africa, he says: “England, Australia and the United States of America have put a stop to it. The latter have drawn a line from Koenigsberg and Genoa, in fact, twenty degrees east of Greenwitch, and reduced the immigration from over 140,000 per annum under the old conditions, to 17,000 under the new law. It has become an awful menace to this country, as most of these immigrants are communists. They will ultimately displace our South African descendants. They have nothing in common with us and would change their nationality ten times daily. My family have been since 1662 in South Africa. I am sorry to say that both parties in politics have played up for their vote; the Nationalists the worst, as Dr. Malan, on Mr. Morris Alexander’s pressure, opened the flood-gates as soon as he got into power.” I should be sorry to hear that that is correct; but in serious vein this correspondent goes on “In later years the Dutch will never forgive any South African who has encouraged this.” The correspondent himself is a Dutch-speaking South African who has some right to express an opinion on this matter, as his ancestors have been in this country since 1662. I do press this matter on the Minister’s attention, and I hope he will give it his serious consideration, with a view to the better administration of the immigration laws, with the object of bringing them into line with the latter developments in America. In to-day’s newspaper—

I am afraid the hon. member cannot advocate new legislation.

I am proposing new methods of administration.

The hon. member may discuss the regulations.

Thank you, sir, I hope it may be possible so to alter the administration of this law as to bring it into line with the administration of the immigration law in America, under which provision is made for officers to travel on the mail boats and to examine would-be immigrants in Europe. That would avoid any hardship to people travelling here on a fruitless errand, and would give us the safeguard of discrimination in regard to the type of immigrants to be admitted here. I entirely agree with my correspondent that in years to come we shall have reason to repent of allowing so many people of an undesirable class to come into this country. Suppose we reverse the situation, and we imagine the poor whites (English or Dutch) of South Africa emigrating to another country. It is no discredit to the races to which the poor whites belong, English and Dutch, that they would be unacceptable in other countries.

Why?

Because they would not be considered to be of the type which would be admissible in regard to educational qualifications and that sort of thing as immigrants.

What an aspersion on the poor whites.

There is no aspersion. I am speaking of the two leading races in South Africa.

It does not matter, it is an aspersion.

It is not an aspersion. People in that state of life, owing to their illiteracy and the conditions under which they have lived, would not be considered desirable immigrants by any country. Similarly, we should take care that we are not being flooded out with immigrants who would correspond in many respects with the unfortunate poor white population of this country. I have been careful not to make any aspersion upon the poor whites, but the Minister of the Interior certainly did so when he spoke of their having the mark of Gibeon on their brow, in other words, suggesting that they were doomed to be hewers of wood and drawers of water.

I hope the Minister will not listen to the antediluvian doctrines which are constantly being preached by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick).

They are most up to date—America is doing it to-day.

We have to take into consideration the circumstances of the different countries. If we want to help the agricultural population of South Africa, then we have to attract more and more people to develop the country and to create a market for our products, instead of having to look overseas for markets. The hon. member for Illovo has a kink, for on every occasion on which he has spoken on this question he has always referred to immigrants from a particular part of Europe; the overwhelming majority of people from that part of the world are members of the Jewish rate. The hon. member obviously is definitely indulging in anti-Semitism; in fact, he has become an anti-Semitic party, and I am surprised that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has never thought fit to repudiate the aspersions the hon. member is constantly passing on a very large portion of the population which has invariably made good here and helped to create some of the wealth of the country. I submit to the Minister that the criterion upon which people should be admitted is their fitness—physical and mental. Does the hon. member propose that these immigrants should be submitted to an intellectual or educational examination? I have a suspicion that if they did not subscribe to his antediluvian views he would say that they were Bolsheviks and should be excluded. I appeal to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to say that his party resents the attitude taken up by the hon. member, which is indicative entirely of racialism.

At the risk of being called antediluvian, I wish to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). The suggestion that views of that kind are anti-Semitic seem to me to be absolutely absurd. We are dealing with a question of the class of immigrants. Whether the immigrants be Jewish, English, French, German or Greeks they must submit to a certain test. That is the position I take up. I was informed that the R.M.S. “Saxon” when she arrived here a few voyages ago, had 59 third-class passengers, of whom only 13 could talk English, and as far as I know, none of them could speak Afrikaans. A year or two ago I was chairman of a committee dealing with the landing of passengers in Cape Town, and our duty was to inspect certain ships. I was astounded at the residue which eventually landed after the immigration authorities had concluded their labours. Now, it is not a question of anti-Semitism, but a question whether we should allow a certain class of people of low standard of life to come into this country where it is necessary that the European race should be of a high standard. I take up the position that in this country it is more necessary that our European immigrants should be of a high standard than in any other country in the world, and certainly more so than the United States of America. We should be very careful with regard to the great number of persons of a low type who are coming into the country at the present time, and I commend this view to the Minister of the Interior.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell was put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 21, “Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble Minded,” £473,674,

I hope the Minister will now agree that progress be reported.

If the hon. member brings forward a good reason why we should adjourn now, I will take it into consideration.

I did not want to take up the time of the House by going once more into the reasons which were given this afternoon. I thought the hon. Minister knew the case we put before him this afternoon still holds now.

I thought the reason advanced was because two gentlemen who took an interest in the vote were absent. We have passed that vote now, so that argument does not apply.

There were more arguments than that brought forward. It was pointed out that no ordinary member of the House could have expected to get to the business we have reached this afternoon. It has been distinctly pointed out that there were many agricultural Bills on the paper of considerable importance that would have taken much time, and also that hon. members who have been kept fairly busy were not able to be present. The Minister must realize that the committee, although the Government did not agree with the proposal, have treated him from this side of the House with every consideration on Vote 20. Now he has got the vote through. The Minister did not reply to all the criticisms levelled against the vote, and he went out of his way to refer to certain questions put to him legitimately in a manner not likely to facilitate the business of the House. Notwithstanding that, the House gave every consideration to the Minister on Vote 20.

I am willing to accept that suggestion in the hope that the good spirit shown on my part will be reciprocated, and in future all sections will work together to facilitate and expedite business. I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in committee to-morrow.